Metaphorical descriptions of wrongdoers

Open access


What is a metaphoric picture of an evil person made of? In a study devoted to the development of the ability to use metaphorical descriptions of humans, the semantic fields of four target metaphors - Human-Swamp, Human-Snake, Human-Knife, and Human-Nettle - were established and compared. Subjects (365 young adults) were asked to decipher the metaphors’ meanings. The results were obtained mainly by qualitative analysis, with frequency analysis of clusters containing synonymous meanings. The results indicate that when creating imaginary characteristics of evil people, young adults seem to be more concerned about the possibility of suffering verbal harassment (most commonly: vulgarity, mockery, gossip, jeering) than the threat of actual physical assault. The results may prove useful for developmental comparisons.


  • Bartczak, M., & Bokus, B. (2013). Rozumienie pojęć w depresji. [Understanding metaphors in depression]. Piaseczno: LEXEM.

  • Białecka-Pikul, M. (2003). Metaphors in preschool child thinking about the mind. Psychology of Language and Communication, 7(2), 37-47.

  • Black, M. (1979). More about metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 19-43). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

  • Blair, R. J. R. (2005). Responding to the emotions of others: Dissociating forms of empathy through the study of typical and psychiatric populations. Consciousness and Cognition, 14, 698-718. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2005.06.004

  • Chance, Z., Norton, M. I., Gino, F., & Ariely, D. (2011). Temporal view of the costs and benefits of self-deception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 15655-15659. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1010658108,(3)

  • Chiappe, D. L., Kennedy, J. M., & Chiappe, P. (2003). Aptness is more important than comprehensibility in preference for metaphors and similies. Poetics, 31, 51-68. doi: 10.1016/S0304-422X(03)00003-2

  • Chiappe, D. L., Kennedy, J. M., & Smykowski, T. (2003). Reversibility, aptness, and the conventionality of metaphors and similes. Metaphor and Symbol, 18(2), 85-105. doi: 10.1207/S15327868MS1802_2

  • Cushman, F., Young, L., & Hauser, M. (2006). The role of conscious reasoning and intuition in moral judgment: Testing three principles of harm. Psychological Science, 17, 1082-1089. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01834.x Cushman, F. (2008). Crime and punishment: Distinguishing the roles of causal and intentional analyses in moral judgment. Cognition, 108, 353-380. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.03.006

  • Dryll, E. M. (2009). Changes in metaphor comprehension in children. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 40(4/2009), 49-57. doi: 10.2478/s10059-009-0015-1

  • Dryll, E. M., & Bokus, B. (2016). Zrozumieć metaforę: Studium z psycholingwistki rozwojowej [Understanding metaphors: A study in developmental psycholinguistics]. Piaseczno: LEXEM.

  • Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogy and metaphor in learning science. Science Education, 75, 649-672. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730750606

  • Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155-170. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog0702_3

  • Gentner, D., & Clement, C. A. (1988). Evidence for relational selectivity in the interpretation of analogy and metaphor. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, (pp. 307-358). New York, NY: Academic Press.

  • Gibbs R. W. Jr (2001). Evaluating contemporary models of figurative language understanding. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3&4), 317-333. doi: 10.1080/10926488.2001.9678900

  • Gibbs, R. (2002). The poetics of mind. Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

  • Glenn, A. L., Iyer, R., Graham, J., Koleva, S., & Haidt, J. (2009). Are all types of morality compromised in psychopathy? Journal of Personality Disorders, 23, 384-398. doi: 10.1521/pedi.2009.23.4.384

  • Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding figurative language from metaphors to idioms. Oxford psychology series, number 36. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

  • Glucksberg, S. (2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(2), 92-96. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(02)00040-2

  • Glucksberg, S. (2008). How metaphors create categories - quickly. In R. W. Gibbs Jr (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 67-83). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

  • Glucksberg, S., & Haught C. (2006). On the relation between metaphor and simile: when comparison fails. Mind and Language, 21(3), 360-378.

  • Glucksberg, S., & Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review, 97, 3-18. doi: 10.1037/0033- 295X.97.1.3

  • Góralski, A. (1987). Metody opisu i wnioskowania statystycznego dla psychologów i pedagogów [Methods of description and statistical reasoning for psychologists and pedagogues]. Warsaw: PWN

  • Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 366-385. doi: 10.1037/a0021847

  • Gray, K., Young, L., & Waytz, A. (2012). Mind perception is the essence of morality. Psychological Inquiry, 23(2), 101-124. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2012.651387

  • Haidt, J. (2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 316, 998-1002. doi: 10.1126/science.1137651

  • Kennedy, J. M., & Chiappe, D. L. (1999). What Makes a Metaphor Stronger Than a Simile? Metaphor and Symbol, 14, 63-69.

  • Kubicka, D. (2005). Myślenie metaforyczne i jego uwarunkowania u dzieci w wieku od 4 do 10 lat [Make strange familiar and make familiar strange: Metaphoric thinking in children from 4 to 10]. Studia Psychologiczne, 43(2), 59-73.

  • Loftus, E. F., & Hoffman, H. G. (1989). Misinformation and memory: The creation of new memories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118(1), 100-104.

  • Loftus, E. F., & Ketcham, K. (1991). Witness for the Defense; The Accused, the Eyewitness, and the Expert Who Puts Memory on Trial. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

  • Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D. (1990). Analogical mapping during similarity judgments. In Cognitive Science Society (Ed.). Proceedings of the twelfth annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 38-44), Cambridge, MA: Cognitive Science Society.

  • Moran, J. M., Young, L. L., Saxe, R., Lee, S. M., O’Young, D., Mavros, P. L., & Gabrieli, J. D. (2011). Impaired theory of mind for moral judgment in high-functioning autism. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 2688-2692. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1011734108

  • Noveck, I.A., Bianco, M., & Castry, A. (2001). The costs and benefits of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(1&2), 109-121. doi: 10.1080/10926488.2001.9678889

  • Ortony, A. (1979). Beyond literal similarity. Psychological Review, 86(3), 161-180. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.86.3.161

  • Ortony, A., Vondruska, R. J., Foss, M. A., & Jones, L. (1985). Salience, similes, and the asymmetry of similarity. Journal of Memory and Language, 24(5), 569-594. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(85)90047-6

  • Pisula, E. (2003). Cognitive and social aspects of communication deficits in children with autism. Psychology of Language and Communication, 7(2), 49-67.

  • Rączaszek-Leonardi, J. (2011). Zjednoczeni w mowie: Względność językowa w ujęciu dynamicznym [United in speech: Linguistic relativity in a dynamic perspective]. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe SCHOLAR.

  • Ricoeur, P. (1978). Metaphorical process as cognition, imagination, and feeling. Critical Inquiry, 5(1), 143-159. doi: 10.1086/447977

  • Shu, L. L., Gino, F., & Bazerman, M. H. (2011). Dishonest deed, clear conscience: When cheating leads to moral disengagement and motivated forgetting. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 330-349. doi: 10.1177/0146167211398138

  • Woolfolk, R. L., Doris, J. M., & Darley, J. M. (2006). Identification, situational constraint, and social cognition: Studies in the attribution of moral responsibility. Cognition, 100, 283-301. doi: 16/j.cognition.2005.05.002

Journal Information

CiteScore 2016: 0.24

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.200
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.380


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 19 19 19
PDF Downloads 4 4 4